"Tortuous or wrongful conduct can be
either intentional or negligent. Intentional torts, as the name implies,
involves conduct that the actor intended to occur. Negligence, on the other hand
involves conduct that was not intended to cause harm or injury, but nonetheless
did so and also breached some duty of care imposed by the law. A person may be
liable for an injury if he or she doesn't not act with the same level of level
of care a reasonable person would use under similar circumstances."...In some situations, it is not very
easy to determine whether certain conduct is intentional or negligent, to some
extent all actions are intentional. The relevant question focuses
on whether the result were intended..." Page
91

In this case:
The Developer intentionally bulldozed
fill far Beyond The Edge
of their property line, pushing the fill against, and then up a Generational
Landowner's Locust Post Grid Fence Line.
An excerpt from
a2003 Meeting:
"I forwarded Rich Lane's observation to the Bridgeport City Planner
Randy Spellman.Randyinformed
me that he tried to stop Platinum Properties twice. They would not stop. He then
contacted the City of Bridgeport'sattorney.
Whereas, he was informed that itwas
a landowner's issue".

Bear in mind:

A Generational Landowner's
Locust Post Grid Fence Line was integrated into a developmental
endeavor. Said Fence Line laterally supported a Rear Lot
& Parking Area, two Buildings and a host of Underground Buried
Utilities; (Some Dangerous). This Is Not a Landowner's Issue.

All Existed in a Public Use
Setting. An area, termed of Criminal Constructs by the Long Visiting
Prominent, was a Construction Issue; Not a Landowner's Issue.

Rich Lane, the former City Planner of Morgantown WV, was correct.
(Affirmed by Legal
Aspects of Code Administration; ICC; International Code Council Inc.)
As such; a Bridgeport City
Attorney interfered with the Code Enforcement of a City Planner. Again;
This Is Not a Landowner's Issue.

Nevertheless; Platinum Properties did
not hold the City of Bridgeport or Thrasher Engineering Accountable
Either. The only movements were
Rezoning Requests from
Rich Lane on behalf of Platinum Properties. Expedited through by an
Attorney / Member of the City of Bridgeport.

Law Firm Jackson and Kelly never
followed through on their
2005 Agreement to correct of
109 and 113 Platinum Drive. (The sheer existence of said was 2005
Agreement was acknowledgement that all knew they had structural
problems).

By 2006; 109 and 113 Platinum
Drive
Suffered Structural Upheavals.
Again, it is unknown if they held their original Engineering Firm
Responsible either.

Nevertheless; The fact that Platinum Properties was warned, and
did not stop is self explanatory. Platinum Properties not only crossed the property line,
they moved far beyond that and then onto our fence line, (a monumental
marker). Which they used for the development's structural lateral support. This denied us the peaceful use of
our property area, from that point on, along with inexplicable long term duress.

Trespass

"Liability under this theory may attach when a person intentionally enters on
land under the possession of another.

"Furthermore, damages will be incurred if
trespass is intentional. .... Once trespass is established, the defendant is
liable for virtually all consequences of the trespass, regardless of how
unpredictable they may be.The
fact the defendant acted reasonable and in good faith is not a defense.
........" Page 100

"2007: Mr. Ray
Henderson, (Consulting
Engineer),
wanted to know why Platinum Properties removed the trees and by whose
authority was the adding of more weight over anactiveslip
area.He
stated that the initial agreement of 2005, or any other correspondence
since, was of no consequence, as all were based on getting the area
corrected before a landslide occurred. Now that it occurred they had no
license and could be in trespass. We need to get an injunction to stop
the work until Platinum Properties Engineer's Plans could be reviewed. We
could not get a law firm to do so".

(Images below are not of the original 2003 trespass, but are from 2007.

Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress

The above mentioned legal aspects of Intentional Tort and Trespass brings us the third: Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress:

"This tort may be broadly defined as the intentional or reckless infliction by extreme and outrageous conduct of severe emotional or mental distress. This claim will be sustained even in the absence of physical harm
... The complained-of activity must be:
... so outrageous in character, and so extreme in degree, as to go beyond all possible bounds of decency, and to be regarded as atrocious, and utterly in≠tolerable in a civilized community. Generally, the case is one in which the recitation of the facts to an average member of the community would arouse his resentment against the actor, and lead him to exclaim, "Outrageous!" Page 99

In 2007; A West Virginia enamored, prominent
European's shock and disbelief. How can such corrective constructive repair attempts, that were taking place, even allowed; yet alone the original construction? He spoke very little afterwards. Something changed, he understood†why I skirted the issue when suggestions of bringing some of his colleagues to visit us and our home area.

The Rule Of Law

The Rule of Law -
The following
are excerpts from; "The Rule of Law" - Copyright 2009, The Public Policy Foundation of West Virginia:

The rule of law makes economic life more predictable and helps to promote prosperity and rising living standards. Economic growth ultimately boils down to ordinary people making sound future-oriented decisions on everyday matters. For this process to work, people need good incentive structures and a reasonably predictable economic climate. Thus, it is the rightful place of the law to set the rules of the game and make economic life more predictable by protecting the security or rights to property and contract. By doing so, the legal system sets the right implicit prices for people to channel their own self-interested decisions into benefits for society. If we set good rules, people will have the right incentives to promote economic growth.

However, the law should not reward opportunistic behavior or set too low an implicit price on violating people's property and contract rights. When the objective of a state's legal System wrongly becomes to redistribute wealth, or change the winners and losers after the fact, this will distort people's incentives and create an environment where people cannot readily predict whether they will enjoy the benefits of their own good decisions. This severs ties between the rule of law and economic growth. By ensuring sound and stable legal; institutions, West Virginians will have the right incentives and a predictable environment for making the kinds of everyday decisions that lead to economic growth and a more prosperous West Virginia into the future.

MEASURING THE Rule OF LAW

What are the basic legal principles that embody the rule of law, and are these principles amenable to empirical measurement? The American Bar Association breaks down the rule of law into four attributes:

The government and its officials and agents are accountable under the Law.

The laws are clear, publicized, stable and fair, and protect fundamental rights,
including the security of persons and property.

The
process by which the laws are enacted, administered and enforced is accessible,
fair and efficient.

The laws are upheld, and access to justice is
provided, by competent, independent, and ethical law
enforcement officials, attorneys or representatives, and judges who
are of sufficient number, have adequate resources, and reflect the
makeup of the communities they serve.

Summary:

Prior to the 2005 agreement, Platinum Properties developmental processes
had already caused damage.
Platinum Properties and
Cincinnati Insurance Company acknowledged this open
and notorious fact and agreed to correct the area per the 2005
Agreement. However, everything was done to avoid correction.
Subsequent liability, for the soon to come all encompassing drainage
damage from said refusal, was never
acknowledged. So, entities may attempt
to
inform citizens that laws already exist for property owners.
As such, all three of the above mentioned legal aspects
would apply to our situation. However, to get a legal entity to
address the legal basis within our current
environment appears to be an exercise in futility. These laws, or any
bearing close resemblance, do not exist in any enforceable way and are
not profitable for an attorney, financially or morally to entertain;
that is if he or she wants to keep practicing in West Virginia.